Member Info for knot

In relation to disinterested vs fiduciary the difference in my mind is that a fiduciary as per the definition has a loyalty to the party who engaged the fiduciary. Offering disinterested advice is a choice as to your obligation to offer such advice, vs a fiduciary that has the interest of the client and acts on behalf of or for the client, i.e. the fiduciary also has the ability (not always) to act for the party to which they owe a loyalty, i.e. to commit them to a deal or change the deal as such.

The very basic aspect is, by removing the fiduciary there is no bribery. The fiduciary implied a duty to the car buyer to act completely in their interest when arranging the loan. The disinterested advice is to offer up an opinion or advice that is not tainted by competing aspects, i.e. twisting the truth by saying this is the best offer, when it may be, but to who is it the best offer. The fiduciary obligates the buyer is the sole beneficiary.

By removing bribery the claims are no longer recoverable for the whole bribe, i.e. the 100% claim for even a £1 "bribe" falls away. The remaining claims as such then have to rely on the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) in order to evaluate what is otherwise fair, as was the case for the prior few decades, including Plevin (which is based on the CCA). The claims under Plevin at the moment would then fall back to only the excess above 50% of the commission value. So, If a case involved a commission of say 60% then only 10% would be awarded as compensation. That makes a massive difference and is the root as to the scale the fiduciary makes on the claim outcome.

In terms of Hopcraft, there would be no bribe and the commission was small, so no claim. The rules explicitly allowed for no disclosure of the commission, so was also within the CCA (i.e. the commission was fair, weather it was secret or not).

The half secret aspect is a distortion of a contract clause that defines the commission and then that contract clause is breached, which has been twisted in the current case. Half guilty is what should be claimed in the case and also half in prison with half a mind..... To retain fiduciary bribery in this instance is to push the ball off the top of the hill that will severely damage (£100bn+) the whole economy over the next 10 years, basic decision of the SC.

That's the brief summary, popcorn calling...munch...munch...

Yep, people are starting to realise the unlimited bounds and unintended consequences creating a fiduciary from trust and an imaginary fee secretly embeded or implied in any item you purchase. Hence the SC will overrule the CoA on the issue around creating a fiduciary by breaking more than half a dozen legal legal precedents going back to the 1700's. Hillariously, requiring the engagement fee to be secret to everyone involved.

Have a good weekend indeed... popcorn at the ready for next week... munch...munch...

"problem solved going forward" - not all companies have recognised or accepted the CoA is legally binding now, even the FCA. My insurance renewal example is just one instance. The other aspect I have just realised is that the fundamental aspect of having to notify and get aproval for a commission is that you can't have auto renewal without positive confirmation, unlike todays in the post or email with no acknowledgement by the consumer to agreeing to a renewal. That beaks more things and another unintended consequence the CoA threw into the market.

Radioactive person is back, with another well thought out and fact founded argument to produce a constructive discussion, ah, sorry, was looking at a different post... yeah, usual negativity from an intellectually challenged NGO operative, googled metaphore yet ?

Long popcorn...munch...munch...

"havoc on Global market" - may well be, however look at the volatility (or lack thereof) of CBG over the last 5 days relative to other banks. This may well be pulling down the option values on CBG and making them cheaper to pickup ahead of the SC in April. This could be the primary game for CBG, stability, with the goal of making buying options cheaper. Either that or 330p is a very heafty line in the sand with a lot of support for other reasons.

Martin the wise one, now possible fiduciary, Lewis has an interesting point about only DCA (via the Barclays case) forming a redress scheme. The only problem is that the SC have to clearly define the path in law under which the scheme is to operate, which is currently missing. The interest rate aspect can only be applied within an average interest rate environment, otherwise it becomes unfair by either allowing massive commissions in high interest rate envoronment or the market freezing up because the commissions are so small in a low interest rate environment. How would the court view zero interest rate loans on new cars ? An unfair enticement involving a reverse interest implication ? The car sale financing the loan ? Does not matter how you slice the cake if the cake is still the same size. This reminds me as to why some companies have back to back trading for UK positions that move them offshore at the close of business to move them outside the UK remit. The final agreed paperwork can be quite different to the intent and how the cake is sliced.

The most sensible ruling in my mind is to force the full disclosure (more than currently required) as to who is getting paid what and let the customer decide. Very simple approach and let the market work. Non disclosure, breakes the rules and the FCA invoke a penalty faster than the courts. Do you want to by an apple for £2, the apple is £0.50 and my take is £1.50 ? The SC run the risk of overriding the FCA in a way that undermines the role of the FCA in the future and creating a framework that the market will find ways around in the future.

Don't forget the ruling applies going forwards and is not a retrospective only nicety for the FCA. The FCA still have an ambition to justify their jobs, so onwards with the march to redress. Next chopping block moment involves the head of the FCA ?

Forcing an arbitrary ruling in a variable interest rate market is going to have unintended consequences in the future. Plevin has flaws when applied to the car market.

The show rolls on, maybe with more stability in the interim, so popcorn at the ready... munch...munch...

In relation to the FCA update, there are several aspects that stand out and like some European diplomats you have to look at how things have been phrased with the choice of specific words. Here I know for a fact that radioactive man is just trying to spin a random negative vibe for other purposes that have nothing to do with CBG and has not even read the FCA update. Makes for some side amusement and curiosity though.

A lot of what was said in the update contained the word "if" as a result of the CoA trampling over rules and prior laws (e.g. CONC, 1934, 1726, etc.). The first paragraph, however, basically says until the SC rule the FCA are clueless and they then go on and quote an ambition. Timing wise they have recognised they can't make any further progress until the SC rule and they have given an indicative "within 6 weeks" of the ruling to say what they will do next. That 6 weeks is amusing considering the glacial pace of the FCA. Interestingly the FCA still split DCA and non-DCA, even though the CoA ruling covered both with no difference, ignoring discression, which is a stark contrast such that the FCA are ignoring the current state of law (the CoA ruling). The use of the word "appropriate" to me goes back to the disagreement the FCA has with bribery and the "have filed our submission" will be hugely interesting as to what they have actually filed. The FCA are blindly continuing on, head in sand, regardless of the CoA ruling.

CBG's £165m may well be in line with what is likely to happen, regardless if this is fair and appropriate in the longer term as to the functioning of the market as a whole. I do not expect it to be much higher via the bribery route because the ramifications of the CoA ruling are far beyond the car market and hence the SC pruning back the huge stretch of the CoA.

Curious as to why now and "have filed our submission" may well be the only reason.

Overall, unconcerned with the update, still happy to hold and watch the show go on, popcorn in hand...munch...munch...

"Sorry wrong bb" - Hillarious, you don't realise how revealing that was... google metaphore...

The show has a new character.. popcorn time...munch...munch...

Very interesting if that is what was redacted. Did the T&C with CBG create a fiduciary obligation of the broker to CBG ? Mothew (1998) defines a fiduciary’s core duty as undivided loyalty. One problem is that both borrower and lender would then need to explicitly consent after full disclosure of a dual fiduciary role and any commissions agreed by both parties. That may pull back in the proffit margin on the car, which supposedly now contains an imaginary notional engagement fee paid by the borrower with the lenders loan to the broker who is arranging the loan to the lender. When the broker is in the middle who breaks what duty to who, especially if the broker has no idea they are a dual fiduciary ? I may not have enough detail (or remaining sanity) to make any firm conclusion beyond consulting my next cup of tea after purposefully ripping the tea bag so I can read some tea leafs.

Half guilty or half secret of being half guilty or just a half secret guilt ? The lenders were found liable because in order to have a payout that did not destroy the entire car market the blame had to be shifted to bigger pockets by working the way via the CCA fairness to bribery via the creation of the fiduciary. That was the type of intent from the FCA before the CoA - lenders pay, brokers get a free pass. Not entirely sure the CoA thought through the ruling beyond the image of the free money tree.

Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in the The Serious Fraud Office at the moment.. "has anyone processes that back office clerks expenses yet ?"...."no, were busy filing 3.141 million proceeds of crime reviews"..."hmm pie.... sky...in...... no idea.."

What a show it's turning into, popcorn it is...munch...munch...

Reading through .... it was an early first pass legal comment on the ruling that did not have much research at the back of it.

[12] - The court assumed the fee was in the car sale price - cart and horse - what is 'committed' first

[13] - Chinese walls in finance aspect of roles completely ignored by the court

[14] - 'unsophisticated' also completely ignores Medsted (2019) aspect of 'prior experience'

[16] - raised by another lawyer and this ruling underpins the insurance market.....

[18] - that's the 1934 ruling - contract law - a very serious slippery slope

[20] - can't apply equity when Keech (1726) requires duty first to gain trust. The CoA went trust to duty.

[21] - master with two hats - does not explain how a broker can be a fiduciary to two masters

[21] - "FCA historically required disclosure....." - wrong, only since 2014 and even then it was a based on material impact requirement until later. FCA encouraging bribery.

[22] - CoA assumes the broker is a criminal to start off with..... guilty until proven innocent ?

[23] - The Plevin angle via CCA

[24] - Then tramples on Plevin - even though they rule Plevin applies to Johnson

Wood (2021) - Separate engagement fee completely ignored by the court

Hurstanger (2007) - Completely ignores simple breach of contract and wanders into the lands of 'half secret'. They have not realised (yet) the legal hole due to (6)(G) being so wrong, plausibly implying a case of fraud by the broker that may re-open the case for challenge and overrule Wood as well.... this could delay the whole ruling further for the better....

Bribery Act - Serious Fraud Office will have to man up to deal with a few million cases of proceeds of crime recovery worth £20-100bn.

This could be the case that sets the precedent into the upending of the worst Court of Appeal ruling in history and the Judges will still keep their jobs....

What a show it's looking to be...popcorn in hand....munch...munch...

Hows about the very basic absolute common sense approach with no regulator or court meddling.

Make it abundantly in your facer clear who get's what and who's paying who and let the customer decide.

Wouldn't that be the basic of basic common sense ? No formula's no complex if's and but's and conspiracy theories.

What is the problem with that as a solution ? Why complicate the matter ?

New brand idea.... "Common Sense Popcorn"... "Eat it or don't, your choice"...........munch...munch...

Here's more insanity : "A credit broker only has to be "in a position to influence or affect the borrower's decision on finance" to be treated as both an agent and a fiduciary of the borrower (encapsulated in the concept of a "disinterested duty"). " Source : https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/court-appeal-ruling-raises-questions-uk-credit-brokers-disinterested-duty-and-informed

The implication in that also means that if you have ever been at a larger high street retailer that sold extended warranties at the till (and the person on the till recieved a secret commission for each sale). I will not name the specific retailer I know this situation was and may still be a fact as to how it worked. All those extended warranties would be liable for a claim. Add in a few other markets (my 2025 insurance for example) and that would likely top out over 50m claims about to roll in if the Supreme Court goes super woke in full belief of the magic money tree.

There are other aspects to the case that I have not mentioned because they are more complex than one post and I doubt anyone is going to read a few pages of legal argument. One may well be a very significant fatal flaw in the CoA ruling and may on it's own rule the fiduciary invalid, let alone common sense factoring in to the decision.

The only doubt that I have as to how it is going to be ruled on as Plevin may not create an equitable solution because market interest rates (separate to the marginal rates offered) create a variable outside of a regulators remit and therefor a blanket 50% applied to X (loan or interest payable) will not work at both extremes of the interest rate cycle. Interest rates at 1% same commission of 50% ? Interest rate at 15% (1980's) same commission of 50% ? If you assume a reasonable upper commission of say £500 would be fair there are equally massive issues with a blanket type fixed rate assumptions, Ford Focus or Ferrari dealer ? That is where the Supreme Court may well create a separate Plevin type ruling, which will go back to derive a notional level of allowable commission or leave the CCA to derive fair case by case. This also has to work for other markets if the ruling remains broad enough to capture those 10m plus contracts, including a £20 toaster. More like early CONC where a notional threashold exists as to a material impact leaving it up for determination case by case, or the CCA fair aspect.

The other insanity is what would happen if the customer arranged the finance first and then bought the car second ? Oh, hang on, isn't that the sequence that occurs.... you can't buy or commit to buying a car without the money... and therefore you have not paid an embedded engagement fee because you never had the money to pay the fee before buying the car... unless you live in the magical money tree world of the Court of Appeal. That is where trust alone creates a fiduciary out of thin air, all magic. Cart and Horse.

Back to the popcorn for the weekend....munch...munch

Really like the comment from Liberty2 and fully agree with it. There are so many principles that the Court of Appeal ignored or trampled over it's concerning because of the way in which prior legal rulings are being twisted in ways to achieve an outcome that is different to the original legal intent of lower rulings. The reasons being the belief that placing the Court of Appeals version of 'fairness' first will create a longer term benefit, however, if you trample upon confidence to achieve a utopian fair world you may not get the intended outcome.

Fairness is also double edged and what about the fairness to the other side whereby the contract was by virtue a duty and trust placed upon the consumer. If the consumer does not even read the contract they are not engaging in that trust and therefore also cannot expect any duty to be owed (another flaw the Court of Appeal ignored or papered over - not a paper contract because that would be secret). This is the very principle founded in 1934.

Confidence creates markets, creates progress, creates stability. What fair market would exists when you can't even rely upon the written word in a contract ? The Court of Appeal ruling is a pathway to underming any term within a written contract that is not otherwise understood by an unsophisticated client and orally explained beforehand. Think this will stop at the disclosure of a commission ?

My recent (3rd March 2025) insurance renewal "Some of our staff also get incentive payments for their work." - "We get a commission from the authorised insurers"...."is included in your premium" - no explicit value disclosed and no up front oral disclosure that I can recall (a twist on the written contract half-secret nonsense). If I don't have to read the contract I don't have to listen or concentrate either. They have not adapted to the Court of Appeal and therefore now seeminly 100% valid to claim breach of fiduciary duty. Why - multiple policy. One policy represents the car the others the finance. At least I can start an ambulance chasing crew if the Supreme Court decides to go the path of economic distruction.

That also means virtually any non commercial contract falls appart if the written contratc is not enough. Fair market with only blind trust as a non written contract ? Wait until AI generated audio is abused to claim a poor quality audio recording of a telephone is fake. That's a step back into arbitrary judgements of tribal councils and is seemingly the pathway that the Court of Appeal would like the UK to go towards. Huge damage forms from tiny cracks that are not dealt with.

If the Supreme Court sides with the Court of Appeal on the fiduciary I would be very concerned for the stability (socially and economically) of the UK because it would be the equivalent of giving a huge hurrah for the creation of a crack in a huge dam.

Would have to stockpile a lot of popcorn in that scenario....munch...munch...

At times, it may appear that the share price is being whipped around in a manic push pull of vested interests with big pockets. Some times, that may be true. What is often misunderstood is the slow and elastic effect that derivatives have on the market, individually and as a whole. Think of derivatives as an elsatic band that is attached to a big weight and on the other end is a ping pong ball. The ping pong ball (spot market) can be knocked around to some distance, however the effect of the derivatives (larger funds) will pull it back into place and plausibly overshoot in the opposite direction. Looking back at the sudden price increment in CBG on 10/11 Feb to 365 level was plausibly one example of this effect occuring. The reason why 'rocket scientists' were the label for the math application earlier in the market was one method, which was akin to missile tracking and reprersents this type of elastic effect to zero in on the real target removing the spot noise. The prolonged sustained c365 level was plausibly also more indicative as to where the price is heading in time given the sustained pull, however the derivative effect and lag pulls the share to a slower path, barring stochastic events like the Court of Appeal, Reeves and the upcomming Supreme Court.

These derivative effects can also have an influence in the opposite direction as to dividends and more specifically in relation to the expected growth of the dividends over time. The immediate level of a dividend is not the key aspect because longer term yields are what values the share. The growth of a dividend creates a gearing effect on the way this valuation works, hence high growth companies tend to end up in bubbles that pop, the overshoot is an inevitability of this mechanism.

This is another reason as to why I strongly believe that CBG will likely not and should not restart a dividend at a high level, rather a small dividend and a buyback. The net effect of these two mechanisms would achieve a much greater share price within a longer term view (1-2yrs). If you need the dividend income earlier I would suggest (massive disclaimer, not a financial recomendation) you buy something with a high dividend like BP, however remember the very basic fact that dividends (income) are taxed very differently to capital gains. Capital gains is also a choice as to when you pay tax, dividends are a forced taxation mechanism.

Back to watching the show continue onwards and (slowly) upwards... popcorn time...munch...munch...

Ah, I guess it does not like less than 5 percent as the short code...

The lack of RNS just seems to indicate that there was quite a bit of hedging in relation to CBAM and quite interesting only one of the shorts closed some of the position out. Maybe they have been watching some Clint Eastwood, "Do you fgeel luck, punk ?".

No change on the shorts today for yesterdays trading close.

Popcorn time again...munch...munch...

Re Atalaya Mining - that might have been a mistake on the indicative review as they were not UK - change is being implemented on 21 March : https://research.ftserussell.com/products/index-notices/home/getnotice/?id=2614886

The review did have them listed as to be included and could have been an oversight as to the listing eligibility.

https://www.lseg.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/ftse-russell/2025/ftse-uk-index-series-indicative-review

Even if Atalaya had been included, THG would not have been included, so did not impact CBG.

Re lack of RNS, smaller non notifiable positions (

Official. CBG back in.

https://www.lseg.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/ftse-russell/2025/ftse-uk-index-series-review-march-2025

Popcorn time...munch...munch...

Well, currently looks like CBG are going to be back in....

https://www.stockchallenge.co.uk/ftse.php

https://www.lseg.com/content/dam/ftse-russell/en_us/documents/policy-documents/ftse-faq-document-uk-2025.pdf

Index Rebalance Market Capitalisation data cut-off : 4 March 2025

Notification of Index Membership Changes (after close) : 5 March 2025

Review Effective Date (open of) : 24 March 2025

Given the overall market performance, especially when looking at banking stocks overall, CBG is doing very well.. sometimes it's all about relativity and seeing what happens on bad days in the market. Einstein got it... I wonder if he had popcorn...munch...munch...

I'm not saying a long would not take a position, I'm refering to the relative price movement compared to the volume that went through on Friday. The net balance was a long addition / short closing and hence the price rise, however a portion of the 10m would appear to have been hedges, which may have had an expectation of being closed out with todays price as a counterbalance to prevent a closure from being abused (i.e. massively ramp Friday unwind ahead of the official announcement). Todays close may have been a coincidence or a contractual effect from Friday. Just some thoughts, because to me it does not necessarily look like someone just picked up 5%. I very much hope I am wrong and time will tell. Either way I'm happy with how things are panning out, so just sitting back and watching the show with popcorn in hand...munch...munch...

Well, it would appear that Squarepoint reduced to 0.43% so are now outside the reporting changes going forwards. That was a small bit of the volumes that pulled the price upwards. The rest would have appeared to possiblly include some other (short) hedge volumes against CBAM not going through, which were also closed out. This makes for a double edge sward because if two types of shorts were closing out on Friday the plausible aspect of another long buying in does not seem to fit the pucture or trend of the share price at the moment. When looking at Lloyds, Barclays and CBG together over the last 5 days, CBG has just traded in the gap between the two and not really making a move outside of this correlation. Maybe not the story people want to hear, however that's possibly just part of how things work. Buy the rumour, sell the fact comment springs to mind. In terms of the ongoing under valued smalllcap shares (reported in the papers a few days back), it's UK wide and an aspect as to the vaccume effect of the big 5 drawing in the liquidity. Balance has to be created. With overvalued stocks, you have to have undervalued stocks if the system is to be sustainable and not a 1920's prospect.

As to the 250 Index, be aware of the three 250 members that are already outside the auto exit point, which by default puts the top three outside into the index. Both bounds don't need to be breached to trigger a move, which at the moment would put CBG back in the index.

It's more interesting that todays close (last trades) were 0.2p away from Fridays close, so possibly an element of the hedges closing out on Friday had a hangover effect or other post transaction settlement effect, which may or may not show with additional short changes reported at tomorrows close given that 1.4m traded today.

CBG seems to be (in comparison to the historic rollercoaster volatility) turning into a quiet day fishing, with not a lot happening when you think it should be... the show continues and so does the popcorn...munch...munch...

In a way, it would be ideal if the SC was to rule early and CBG did not get into the 250 this review date. CBG could then start a buyback before the next review date and pickup a lot more shares at a lower price than if they were in the 250 and had more trackers buying. Would end up with a higher per share price in say 6-9mth time. With that in mind, I'm indifferent as to if CBG get back in on this review date. Might get a bigger return in the short term from re-entry but a lower return in the longer term if they get back in this week and do a buyback later.

The push down continues, to try and flush out some of the early buyers this morning. Might continue or get snapped back, the shorts have a position to defend but they are limited on time...... the rollercoaster continues.... watch for an end of day kick up as the daily shorts close out...

Just a thought.... sit back, watch the show and don't forget the popcorn...munch...munch...

The panic push down, protecting the 250 re-entry backwind of more trackers..... the prisoners dilema of cooperate and coordinate together or rush for the exit.... capitalism vs prisoners..... quick, run....

I can smell something burning and it's not the popcorn...munch...munch...